DVD Talk
‘Max Hardcore’ Porn Producer Convicted for Obscenity in Florida [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : ‘Max Hardcore’ Porn Producer Convicted for Obscenity in Florida


mhg83
06-08-08, 08:40 AM
An actor and producer who calls himself Max Hardcore was convicted of obscenity charges yesterday by federal jurors in Tampa, Fla.

The producer, whose real name is Paul F. Little, was convicted of distributing obscene material on the Internet and through the mail, report the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune. The reports differed on the number of counts.

Jurors reached the decision after watching Little’s films on a giant courtroom screen. They included scenes that included “urinating, vomiting and violently dominating women,” the Times story says.

Defense lawyer H. Louis Sirkin said the verdict comes on “a sad day for the First Amendment."

The Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section prosecuted the case. In a February article, critics told the ABA Journal the department isn’t doing enough to prosecute Internet pornography.

http://abajournal.com/news/max_hardcore_porn_producer_convicted_for_obscenity_in_florida/

-While his films may seem disturbing, I dont think he should go to prison over this. Bottom line: Consenting adults made a movie. Consenting adults starred in the movie. Consenting adults bought the movie. I think the whole obscenities laws are old and need to be changed.

"I don’t like Max Hardcore’s movies. You probably wouldn’t either. I have exercised my right to watch something else, but I certainly don’t mind if my neighbors want to watch his movies. That is what freedom is."-Debra Cassens Weiss

Sean O'Hara
06-08-08, 09:35 AM
There was almost a hung jury, but unfortunately juror Mr. Mixx shouted "Me so horny" in the middle of one of the videos and was thrown out.

The Bus
06-08-08, 09:52 AM
For legal brief purposes, could we see some of these videos, maybe re-enacted by Lego people to make them OK to see here?

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 10:19 AM
I don't think I wanna see a hung jury. At least, not in this case.

Nick Danger
06-08-08, 10:26 AM
Max Hardcore Found Guilty in Obscenity Trial
Jurors find Max and his company guilty on all counts

By: David Sullivan

Posted: 06/05/2008

TAMPA - Producer Max Hardcore was found guilty today of 10 federal counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail. His company Max World Entertainment was also found guilty on 10 related charges.

"It's a sad day for all Americans when they smash any kind of free speech and that's what happened in Tampa today," Max Hardcore told AVN. "They trampled on free speech, and I intend to appeal."
ADVERTISEMENT

Max faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count of conviction, as well as forfeiture of his Internet domain names. Max World faces a separate $250,000 fine. The government had separately sought the forfeiture of Hardcore's home in Altadena, Calif., but the jury ruled against that penalty.

"I'm full of good spirits and they didn't get my house," Hardcore said. "We're talking to a couple of jurors and they felt very strongly for me, but the way the laws are formulated, they were boxed in to a corner. I should have got off for this nonsense; obscenity is an archaic term, it's not defined well. I received no warning and they attempted to put me behind bars; they've got a conviction, but we intend to fight on."

Earlier today, jurors asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew for guidance as the jury was having trouble reaching a unanimous decision.

The jury foreman sent a note to Bucklew just after 3 p.m., asking: "If we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts, but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts that we decide on stand?''

Bucklew said the jury's decision would count.

The jurors responded in another note: "There are people on both sides of the issues, and we do not believe we'll be able to reach a unanimous decision. How long must we deliberate?''

The judge urged jurors to try again. "I'm not going to tell you how much time to deliberate, but I am going to ask you to deliberate again,'' she said.

The jury then asked Judge Bucklew for permission to take a break, because "emotions were running very high." Bucklew granted the break, asking attorneys to stay in the courthouse to give the jurors time to talk again.

The jury returned its verdict at approximately 7 p.m after deliberating for a total of 14 hours in the past two days. After the jury returned its verdict, the judge dismissed the defense's motion to dismiss the case which had been held in reserve.

"It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written," one juror told AVN.

Several jurors approached Max Hardcore and his attorneys to express their sympathy at having been forced to convict him on the counts due to the "poorly written" law regarding the transportation of obscene material via the internet and the mailing of the DVDs to the middle district of Florida.

Another juror reportedly said that if two words in the law had been different, he would have held out for acquittal.

Attorney Jeffrey Douglas echoed Max's sentiments.

"As I said in closing argument, I believe that this prosecution was shameful," Douglas told AVN. "And as Max Hardcore said, this is a sad day for America. It's a deeply sad day for him personally, but also for all of us."

Max Hardcore will be sentenced September 5. He is free on bail until that date.

Adult Video News Link. (http://www.avn.com/video/articles/30610.html)

I think that taking the trial to Florida, where even the jurors think the law is badly worded, is venue shopping at its worst.

I'm hoping the next administration will be more interested in pursuing violent criminals and less interested in suppressing pornography.

I notice that the only juror whose statement was printed in the Tampa newspaper thought the conviction was wonderful.

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 10:39 AM
In the meantime, he can change the owners of the domains, host them outside the US, and move to Canada, Mexico, or some nice island.

Fuck, if you had the money, why live in the US.

DeadLamb
06-08-08, 04:47 PM
Lame..

I think his films are junk but they are still made by consenting adults, same for who ever buys or watches them.. Gov should focus on more important things then putting someone in jail and taking their home away from something as subjective as "obscene materials"..

I mean it's not like the guy mails DVDs out to random homes and people get it and "Hey what's this? A new Disney film? Wait, why is that bowl there?". One has to sort of hunt it down, pay for it, get it mailed to them, open it, put in the DVD player etc.. That's a whole lot of steps to take to get Max peeing on some 30 year old dressed up like a teen..

Giantrobo
06-08-08, 06:21 PM
Love him or hate him, this is a bad bad thing.

Over at xcritic there's a whole thread there and the "industry types" basically have a "Fuck Max let him burn" attitude since his stuff is a bit more extreme.

macnorton
06-08-08, 06:31 PM
Although I personally find his body of work to be disgusting...that doesn't change the fact that he has total and complete right to do so. You can't let your personal feelings of the guy get in the way of the law.

It is a fucking travesty. The current administration is more concerned about lining their pockets and suppressing free speech..instead of going after the assholes who caused 9/11 and the real criminals that kill people.

EDIT - I wanted to add that Max and the others are consenting adults, so what they do is their own business. But more importantly, his films are art and those are protected by the Constitution, no matter what a poorly written Florida law says.

crazyronin
06-08-08, 06:37 PM
"It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written," one juror told AVN.

#1 reason jury nullification should be taught in school civics classes.

eXcentris
06-08-08, 06:37 PM
I don't think I wanna see a hung jury. At least, not in this case.


... :lol: ...

macnorton
06-08-08, 06:38 PM
#1 reason jury nullification should be taught in school civics classes.

Excellent point. But even the judge should have looked at this and made the right call here.

orangecrush
06-09-08, 08:53 AM
Fuck, if you had the money, why live in the US.
So you can keep the money?

orangecrush
06-09-08, 08:55 AM
I would also like to point out that Max Hardcore > Paul F. Little as far as porn names go.

dork
06-09-08, 09:07 AM
But more importantly, his films are art
Strongly disagree. You could maybe make the case that Piss Piss Bang Bang was art, but Piss Piss Bang Bang 2 was derivative garbage.

al_bundy
06-09-08, 09:23 AM
Although I personally find his body of work to be disgusting...that doesn't change the fact that he has total and complete right to do so. You can't let your personal feelings of the guy get in the way of the law.

It is a fucking travesty. The current administration is more concerned about lining their pockets and suppressing free speech..instead of going after the assholes who caused 9/11 and the real criminals that kill people.

EDIT - I wanted to add that Max and the others are consenting adults, so what they do is their own business. But more importantly, his films are art and those are protected by the Constitution, no matter what a poorly written Florida law says.

the first amendment was written to protect criticism of the government, not to make porn

Mordred
06-09-08, 01:42 PM
the first amendment was written to protect criticism of the government, not to make pornSo basically all Max needs to do is dress up as George Bush and it becomes a commentary on our government.

Birrman54
06-09-08, 01:49 PM
the first amendment was written to protect criticism of the government, not to make porn

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My copy of the Constitution must be missing that 'criticism of government' part.

chris_sc77
06-09-08, 01:53 PM
And the rights Americans are supposed to have are continuing to be disregarded. Each day I hate this country more and more. What a shame. I can't believe this is a country actually referred to as "Land of the Free".
I wish I had the resources to move to a real free country.

Shannon Nutt
06-09-08, 01:54 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My copy of the Constitution must be missing that 'criticism of government' part.

Obscenity is not protected free speech as defined in the 1st Amendment.

The issue here is WHAT is obscene. Sadly, the law is so vague that anything could fit under the defintition - hence why adult producers continue to get prosecuted.

dork
06-09-08, 02:37 PM
My copy of the Constitution must be missing that 'criticism of government' part.
Max's copy is a bit different:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:bmonkey:, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:yack:; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press-other-; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances:yack::bmonkey::hump:.

wishbone
06-09-08, 02:46 PM
^^^ I think those smilies can be retired now... they have served their purpose. :lol:

al_bundy
06-09-08, 02:54 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My copy of the Constitution must be missing that 'criticism of government' part.


Supreme Court decided a long time ago that free speech doesn't mean totally free

maxfisher
06-09-08, 03:00 PM
I can understand placing certain obscenity-based restrictions on free speech in public places. Extending those restrictions to exchanges that take place in private is idiotic.

bhk
06-09-08, 03:02 PM
I wish I had the resources to move to a real free country.
There's no country like that. Even enlightened France and Canada have laws that abridge the right to free speech. They're called "hate-speech" laws there so libs that are restricting free-speech feel good about themselves while they are doing it.

Ky-Fi
06-09-08, 04:25 PM
Lame..

I think his films are junk but they are still made by consenting adults, same for who ever buys or watches them.. Gov should focus on more important things then putting someone in jail and taking their home away from something as subjective as "obscene materials"..

I mean it's not like the guy mails DVDs out to random homes and people get it and "Hey what's this? A new Disney film? Wait, why is that bowl there?". One has to sort of hunt it down, pay for it, get it mailed to them, open it, put in the DVD player etc.. That's a whole lot of steps to take to get Max peeing on some 30 year old dressed up like a teen..


I pretty much have to agree with that. I feel that this type of stuff does have a negative impact on society and the lives of those involved, but the fact is I'm free to publish my own thoughts on that and go on a multimedia crusade against it with moral arguments, if I really felt it was an important issue. There's lots of ways for individuals to combat speech they don't like with their own free speech, and I tend to prefer that over government imposed legal censorship.

orangecrush
06-09-08, 04:29 PM
I wish I had the resources to move to a real free country.
Where is this magical land you speak of? Do they have Eskimos too?

Ky-Fi
06-09-08, 04:38 PM
And the rights Americans are supposed to have are continuing to be disregarded. Each day I hate this country more and more. What a shame. I can't believe this is a country actually referred to as "Land of the Free".
I wish I had the resources to move to a real free country.

......Mrs. Obama is on this forum?

kvrdave
06-09-08, 04:49 PM
I don't know who he is, but this could certainly slippery slope itself to crap.

Sean O'Hara
06-09-08, 06:22 PM
I don't know who he is, but this could certainly slippery slope itself to crap.

I saw that one -- Gangbang Bus in Poop Shoot Heaven.

wmansir
06-09-08, 10:34 PM
A couple of thoughts

First, I think there is little doubt the material is obscene, even a large part of the porn community agrees with that. It seems most here just feel that obscene material should be protected by the 1st amendment. That's a valid opinion, but not what the supreme court has repeatedly found.

Second, I don't think this case should be of much concern for the porn industry. If anything it shows how high the threshold for obscenity has become, as the cases who's precedent it follows were for depictions of mere nudity or common sex acts. Max's stuff is pretty extreme and even then it seems like there was almost a hung jury.

DeadLamb
06-10-08, 02:03 AM
First, I think there is little doubt the material is obscene, even a large part of the porn community agrees with that. It seems most here just feel that obscene material should be protected by the 1st amendment.

IMO obscene material should only come under fire when presented as part of a public display. When it's viewed, watched, read or listened to in a private setting I don't think "community standards" should come into play.

Being the tag line of "obscene" is just way too subjective. In the case of porn I think the main -no- that gets a film the obscene tag is water sports and I don't think they are allowed to "fist".

Soooooo a mock rape is ok? Spitting on a person and slapping them around is ok? A ton of errr lets just say -fluid- is ok, but not if it's pee?

Again, I'm not saying any of that is ok or that it's bad, just that if a person is sitting around their own home watching it, I don't see how it's an issue of community standard for what is obscene. Now if the guy is watching it on all 4 DVD screens in his SUV while driving past a school etc, ok that's breaking community standards. Parked in his own garage with the door closed? Nope..

Max lack of support in the porn industry is mostly due to the pure misogynistic nature of his porn. The guy is just creepy and it goes way past what is thought of as ok for most who make porn.

Brack
06-10-08, 03:12 AM
why is max hardcore getting singled out? there are far worse things out there than him peeing on some legal-aged girl.

Houstondon
06-10-08, 06:09 AM
why is max hardcore getting singled out? there are far worse things out there than him peeing on some legal-aged girl.
Max wasn't "singled out" any more than JM Productions were singled out, Seymore Butts singled out, Rob Black & Lizzie singled out, Adam & Eve singled out, Evil Angel singled out, etc. He's been prosecuted before and IIRC, his sales shoot through the roof whenever he stands trial.

Personally, I don't like his movies either (how many have I reviewed in the last ten years-one) and I wish the verdict had gone another way but the jury is legally the group in charge of guilt/innocence. If a few of them regret convicting the guy, they are welcome to join the great many spineless jurors over the last few hundred years that did not stand by their convictions (to be fair though, AVN isn't generally known for providing balanced coverage; they are a trade organization so without corroborating accounts, I'll reserve judgment). To suggest obscenity prosecutions are something new is to forget the lengthy history of them that has existed long before Chatsworth emerged as the home of the American porn industry too. Claiming the Constitution always protected recorded sex of any type is curious since modern porn has been prosecuted since it's founding in the early 70's, current standards generally tamer than some of what took place back them.

The folks in the industry that said he'd be prosecuted generally follow the line of thinking that because he pushed the current envelop in terms of sex, he invited the feds to scrutinize all of them more actively. By that way of thinking, they might as well have dumbed down most of the industry to the lowest common denominator (erotica and/or couples sex) but even then there would be places and people that would find the movies obscene (typically religious fundamentalists and some feminist extremists).

Nick Danger
06-10-08, 09:02 AM
I don't think that anyone is saying "the Constitution always protected recorded sex of any type". The big obscenity cases over Ulysses was in the 30s and Lady Chatterley's Lover was in the 50s.

According to Wikipedia, Lady Chatterley's Lover was involved in another Supreme Court case in 1981, when the state of New York tried to censor a movie made of it for obscenity. New York lost. The implication is that individual jurisdictions could still censor mainstream movies up until then.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who think the decisions on those obscenity cases moved the country in the wrong direction. I'm sure there are also plenty of people who think what they enjoy should be allowed, but what Max Hardcore sold was over the nebulous "line" and should be banned.

Sean O'Hara
06-10-08, 09:23 AM
A couple of thoughts

First, I think there is little doubt the material is obscene, even a large part of the porn community agrees with that. It seems most here just feel that obscene material should be protected by the 1st amendment. That's a valid opinion, but not what the supreme court has repeatedly found.

If they went after a porno theater for showing these movies, or a store for selling them, that'd be one thing. But imposing their own local community standards on the Internet is quite another.

Brack
06-10-08, 09:36 AM
The folks in the industry that said he'd be prosecuted generally follow the line of thinking that because he pushed the current envelop in terms of sex, he invited the feds to scrutinize all of them more actively

this is what I was getting at. I don't think he's doing anything that hasn't been done before. but thanks for pointing out the other lawsuits, I'm not hip to all that goes on with the porn lawsuits (though I shouldn't be surprised).

MartinBlank
06-10-08, 11:14 AM
If only our Framers had known what society would have evolved into, they would have worded <s>The 2nd Amendment</s> The 1st Amendment better.

joeblow69
06-10-08, 11:44 AM
Being the tag line of "obscene" is just way too subjective. In the case of porn I think the main -no- that gets a film the obscene tag is water sports and I don't think they are allowed to "fist".

Interestingly enough, these 2 acts, watersports and fisting, are generally NOT considered obscene when it comes to gay porn. Most of the larger gay porn companies have a line of films that contain that kind of stuff. And as far as I know, none of them have ever been prosecuted for it.

Seems kind of sexist, I think. I guess women in porn are seen as "poor, helpless victims of circumstance" by the prosecutors.

macnorton
06-10-08, 12:10 PM
Interestingly enough, these 2 acts, watersports and fisting, are generally NOT considered obscene when it comes to gay porn. Most of the larger gay porn companies have a line of films that contain that kind of stuff. And as far as I know, none of them have ever been prosecuted for it.

Seems kind of sexist, I think. I guess women in porn are seen as "poor, helpless victims of circumstance" by the prosecutors.

My argument has always been, who defines obscene? For me, personally, I find a lot of religious imagery offensive. I do not believe in it, but it seems to be fine to force that on people. However porn (or sex in general) is frowned upon. I never understood that. So if I say that pictures of Jesus are obscene what do you think would happen? It is that wonderful double standard when have in this great country of ours.

Anyways the point is, he makes films with consenting adults and it is consenting adults who buy his stuff. That is it right there, end of argument. It should not matter if you like the guy or not (I don't) but he has the right to do it. And if the jury in his case could not come to that conclusion, then there is something seriously wrong with the American justice system.

Josh-da-man
06-10-08, 04:02 PM
My argument has always been, who defines obscene?

A prosecutor and a jury applying the "Miller Test:"

1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(Yes, I know it's vague and stupid. And, unfortunately, people can have their lives and livelihoods destroyed by the capricious application of these laws.)

macnorton
06-10-08, 07:19 PM
A prosecutor and a jury applying the "Miller Test:"



(Yes, I know it's vague and stupid. And, unfortunately, people can have their lives and livelihoods destroyed by the capricious application of these laws.)

And that right there ladies and gentlemen of the jury is why the innocent go to jail and the criminal stay on the streets.

al_bundy
06-11-08, 07:32 AM
A prosecutor and a jury applying the "Miller Test:"



(Yes, I know it's vague and stupid. And, unfortunately, people can have their lives and livelihoods destroyed by the capricious application of these laws.)


nothing vague about it, most of it is common sense

orangecrush
06-11-08, 08:57 AM
And that right there ladies and gentlemen of the jury is why the innocent go to jail and the criminal stay on the streets.
In obscenity cases? If the definition of guilt is nebulous how can you resolutely say they are innocent?

macnorton
06-11-08, 09:31 AM
In obscenity cases? If the definition of guilt is nebulous how can you resolutely say they are innocent?

I'm pointing out how ridiculous this situation is in the general sense. I mean this is porn we are talking about...there are a TON of MAJOR problems in America that need the courts attention...not this.

So the porn producer goes to jail because someone who doesn't buy/like his work says so? And yet Enron exces, molester priest and the guys in this administration aren't punished for their crimes. (I am not attempting to start a political war here, again I am just pointing about how totally ludicrous this situation really is in the grand scheme of things.)

orangecrush
06-11-08, 09:43 AM
I'm pointing out how ridiculous this situation is in the general sense. I mean this is porn we are talking about...there are a TON of MAJOR problems in America that need the courts attention...not this.

So the porn producer goes to jail because someone who doesn't buy/like his work says so? And yet Enron exces, molester priest and the guys in this administration aren't punished for their crimes. (I am not attempting to start a political war here, again I am just pointing about how totally ludicrous this situation really is in the grand scheme of things.)
I am with you on the executives and molester priests. The way our justice system views "white collar" crime is a travesty. As to molestation, it is a tougher thing to prove in court. My personal animosity is directed towards family court and their presumption of the guilt of accused parents. I also think that you can get really screwed if the prosecutor has a bug up their butt or it is an election year and they want to make an example of you.

macnorton
06-11-08, 10:02 AM
I am with you on the executives and molester priests. The way our justice system views "white collar" crime is a travesty. As to molestation, it is a tougher thing to prove in court. My personal animosity is directed towards family court and their presumption of the guilt of accused parents. I also think that you can get really screwed if the prosecutor has a bug up their butt or it is an election year and they want to make an example of you.

Agreed...but that is the justice system today. The wealthier you are or if you are Christian you can probably bet the farm that you AREN'T going to jail. And yet common folk, like the thread about the guy with pot, will go to jail. Things are just FUBAR'ed in this country big time. And the depressing part is, that it is not one singular body to blame...there are lots. And that scares me.

Shannon Nutt
06-11-08, 11:03 AM
I can understand placing certain obscenity-based restrictions on free speech in public places. Extending those restrictions to exchanges that take place in private is idiotic.

You've hit the nail on the head - the current obscenity laws were created BEFORE the advent of home video - when adult movies were shown primarily in adult movie theaters, hence the "community standards" rule that applies to these cases. Clearly in a world where porn is watched almost exclusively in the privacy of ones home, "community standards" should no longer apply. But don't try to tell the Conservatives that.

al_bundy
06-11-08, 11:07 AM
I'm pointing out how ridiculous this situation is in the general sense. I mean this is porn we are talking about...there are a TON of MAJOR problems in America that need the courts attention...not this.

So the porn producer goes to jail because someone who doesn't buy/like his work says so? And yet Enron exces, molester priest and the guys in this administration aren't punished for their crimes. (I am not attempting to start a political war here, again I am just pointing about how totally ludicrous this situation really is in the grand scheme of things.)


Enron execs and Bernie Ebbers went to jail

orangecrush
06-11-08, 11:32 AM
Enron execs and Bernie Ebbers went to jail
True, but they should have been beaten severely for the pain they caused.

Birrman54
06-11-08, 11:40 AM
is distribution required in order to convict on an obscenity charge? i.e if a man urinated on his wife, filmed it, and they watched it in the privacy of their home - is that obscene?

In the days where two kids can both be charged with distribution of child pornography because they sent each other nude photos, I'm not so sure anymore.

macnorton
06-11-08, 12:42 PM
is distribution required in order to convict on an obscenity charge? i.e if a man urinated on his wife, filmed it, and they watched it in the privacy of their home - is that obscene?

In the days where two kids can both be charged with distribution of child pornography because they sent each other nude photos, I'm not so sure anymore.

I totally agree. Our nation for some reason finds any sexual to be like the be all end all of humanity. But yet so many other VIOLENT crimes go unpunished or don't receive enough attention.

For the record, the two kids being charged with child porn distro was just plain baffling. They are kids, I mean they are not trying to do the things that a lot of the true scumbags out there are trying to do. Boy, what a wonderful nation we live in.

orangecrush
06-11-08, 01:06 PM
Boy, what a wonderful nation we live in.
Sadly, it is the best the world has to offer.

Giantrobo
06-11-08, 01:09 PM
Agreed...but that is the justice system today. The wealthier you are <b>or if you are Christian you can probably bet the farm that you AREN'T going to jail. </b> And yet common folk, like the thread about the guy with pot, will go to jail. Things are just FUBAR'ed in this country big time. And the depressing part is, that it is not one singular body to blame...there are lots. And that scares me.


I'm sorry but what the HELL are you talking about here??? Do Christians get a "Free ride" in the court systems of America? Really?

Birrman54
06-11-08, 01:13 PM
Sadly, it is the best the world has to offer.

I won't really argue with you there, it's just so unfortunate we spend so much time and energy on silly things like preventing people from watching sex videos or taking drugs.

Josh-da-man
06-11-08, 01:35 PM
is distribution required in order to convict on an obscenity charge? i.e if a man urinated on his wife, filmed it, and they watched it in the privacy of their home - is that obscene?

Well, it's not "obscene" unless you're charged and convicted. There's literally no standard for what is or isn't obscene, other than the Miller test. So urination might be obscene, providing a prosecutor can get an a jury to convict. The only kind of pornography that is explicitly prohibited by law is child pornography.

As to your question, it isn't illegal to own obscene material. It's illegal to "promote" obscenity, which means to sell or distribute it. So that urination video only becomes illegal (and at that, it's only potentially illegal) if someone tries to sell it or post it online where other people can see it.

It is perfectly legal to own the Max Hardcore videos in question. It's just illegal to sell them in that one place in Florida. And even then, they aren't "banned" as such, just that in that one case they were found obscene and Max was convicted.

Josh-da-man
06-11-08, 01:50 PM
You've hit the nail on the head - the current obscenity laws were created BEFORE the advent of home video - when adult movies were shown primarily in adult movie theaters, hence the "community standards" rule that applies to these cases. Clearly in a world where porn is watched almost exclusively in the privacy of ones home, "community standards" should no longer apply. But don't try to tell the Conservatives that.

The Miller Test obviously predates home video, but obscenity laws are also applicable to other media. Hustler Magazine was a frequent target of obscenity prosecutions back in the day, too. And they also applied to thing that were sent through the mail, presumably for private home consumption, too.

And, beyond porn movies, it's also not unusual for comic book stores to get slapped with and obscenity charges. There's even an organization, the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund (http://www.cbldf.org), set up to help comic book stores who find themselves under fire from overzealous prosecutors. And there's also the case of Mike Diana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana), an artist, who was convicted on obscenity charges for his artwork. (In Florida, natch.)

mhg83
06-11-08, 03:16 PM
Well, it's not "obscene" unless you're charged and convicted. There's literally no standard for what is or isn't obscene, other than the Miller test. So urination might be obscene, providing a prosecutor can get an a jury to convict. The only kind of pornography that is explicitly prohibited by law is child pornography.
As to your question, it isn't illegal to own obscene material. It's illegal to "promote" obscenity, which means to sell or distribute it. So that urination video only becomes illegal (and at that, it's only potentially illegal) if someone tries to sell it or post it online where other people can see it.

It is perfectly legal to own the Max Hardcore videos in question. It's just illegal to sell them in that one place in Florida. And even then, they aren't "banned" as such, just that in that one case they were found obscene and Max was convicted.

In one of the other articles i read, it said he was also charged with child pornography. The actress was over 18 but dressed up as a minor and even stated she was "12 years old" Not sure if that should be considered c.p. since she was only playing a part and no child was used in the making of the movie.

Houstondon
06-11-08, 04:12 PM
Agreed...but that is the justice system today. The wealthier you are or if you are Christian you can probably bet the farm that you AREN'T going to jail.
Pardon the intrusion but Max did not want for expensive lawyers that are considered the best in the business. Even if he "wins" on appeal, his costs are so high that a prolonged fight could bankrupt him (and if he tries to write off the legal costs on his taxes, he'll be smoked since it is likely that the IRS will be keeping an eye on him).

al_bundy
06-11-08, 04:57 PM
In one of the other articles i read, it said he was also charged with child pornography. The actress was over 18 but dressed up as a minor and even stated she was "12 years old" Not sure if that should be considered c.p. since she was only playing a part and no child was used in the making of the movie.

there is a new law that says you can't make porn if the "actors" pretend they underage or that gives any suggestion that the actors are underage

wewantflair
06-11-08, 05:26 PM
there is a new law that says you can't make porn if the "actors" pretend they underage or that gives any suggestion that the actors are underage

Not true. There was a law passed in 1996, but it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2002.

macnorton
06-11-08, 08:48 PM
I'm sorry but what the HELL are you talking about here??? Do Christians get a "Free ride" in the court systems of America? Really?

That was in reference to my priest comment earlier. But to answer no, it does not.

macnorton
06-11-08, 08:52 PM
Pardon the intrusion but Max did not want for expensive lawyers that are considered the best in the business. Even if he "wins" on appeal, his costs are so high that a prolonged fight could bankrupt him (and if he tries to write off the legal costs on his taxes, he'll be smoked since it is likely that the IRS will be keeping an eye on him).

Let's face reality here for a second...if money is no object to you, do you really think you are going to jail? It worked for OJ and Phil Spector, so why not for others. Point is, the justice system today is "pay for play", period. But that is how I feel about it.

crazyronin
06-11-08, 08:55 PM
That was in reference to my priest comment earlier. But to answer no, it does not.

Yep them priests getting off the hook all the time for molestation. (http://www.google.com/search?q=priest+convicted+molestation)

macnorton
06-11-08, 09:03 PM
Yep them priests getting off the hook all the time for molestation. (http://www.google.com/search?q=priest+convicted+molestation)

That maybe true, but I think about how long some of these cases too, how many aren't reported, and what slap on the wrist punishments these guys get half the time.

Take this POS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_O%27Grady

7 years? That is a fucking joke. But man if you bring a ton of reefer into America, you can go to jail for life. Please. The system is broken plain and simple. And it disgusts me that a lot of innocent people go to jail and the real pieces of shit either don't go to jail or get a light sentence/slap on the wrist.

damn_skippy
06-11-08, 09:20 PM
I am no prude and i enjoy porn as much as the next guy. But I really doubt that the great men who wrote our constitution were meant to protect people like this and this sort of "press".

Michael T Hudson
06-11-08, 10:59 PM
Not the same case but this is kind of funny.

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - A federal judge has suspended the obscenity trial of a Los Angeles porn distributor following a newspaper report that the judge had sexually explicit material on his own Web site.

Judge Alex Kozinski on Wednesday granted a joint motion to suspend the trial after the prosecution said it needed time to look into the issue of the judge's Web site.

The judge has told the jury to return on Monday. The panel spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals watching videos depicting bestiality and extreme fetishes.

Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit but is serving as a trial judge in the obscenity case.

Red Dog
06-12-08, 07:26 AM
Kozinski is one of my favorite judges. If he put porn on his personal website, I think he'd vault to #1.

al_bundy
06-12-08, 07:28 AM
Let's face reality here for a second...if money is no object to you, do you really think you are going to jail? It worked for OJ and Phil Spector, so why not for others. Point is, the justice system today is "pay for play", period. But that is how I feel about it.

in the end a jury of ordinary people decide guilt or innocence. i did jury duty one time and we found the guy not guilty even though he was most probably guilty. DA was pissed too.

Birrman54
06-12-08, 09:23 AM
I am no prude and i enjoy porn as much as the next guy. But I really doubt that the great men who wrote our constitution were meant to protect people like this and this sort of "press".

Funny, I think pretty much the exact opposite.

It's when speech is at it's most repulsive and objectionable, when the majority cries out for it to be silenced, that the protections our laws afford are most important.

Shannon Nutt
06-12-08, 11:15 AM
is distribution required in order to convict on an obscenity charge? i.e if a man urinated on his wife, filmed it, and they watched it in the privacy of their home - is that obscene?

In the days where two kids can both be charged with distribution of child pornography because they sent each other nude photos, I'm not so sure anymore.

Yes, distribution is required. It's not against the law to OWN obscene material...it's against the law to sell/distribute it.

As opposed to child porn, which is illegal to own and distribute.

macnorton
06-12-08, 12:48 PM
in the end a jury of ordinary people decide guilt or innocence. i did jury duty one time and we found the guy not guilty even though he was most probably guilty. DA was pissed too.

In a perfect world yes. Today's world no, sadly. Keep in mind I am very jaded about the justice system, and I am fully aware that this is indeed fact, I just don't believe in it anymore.

macnorton
06-12-08, 12:49 PM
Yes, distribution is required. It's not against the law to OWN obscene material...it's against the law to sell/distribute it.

As opposed to child porn, which is illegal to own and distribute.

And that is why this case is so out of whack. The laws need to be looked at and re-written for starters. And second, I think every single American should have a master class on the Constitution so we avoid situations like this in the future.

Houstondon
06-12-08, 01:42 PM
Funny, I think pretty much the exact opposite.

It's when speech is at it's most repulsive and objectionable, when the majority cries out for it to be silenced, that the protections our laws afford are most important.
I'm a long time supporter of consensual adult material being legalized and I support changing the laws to a more objective basis but given that all sorts of mainstream material has been found legally "obscene" over the last 200+ years, I find the arguments that protecting Max's commercial speech strange.

If you asked those that signed the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights would their affirmations cover dunking a female's head in a urinal while sodomizing her, I get the impression that they'd have you tar and feathered before you could blink an eye. Thankfully, we've progressed over time to where books like The Catcher in the Rye and other literary works are not as subject to personal interpretation but just because I might "agree" with the consent issues involved (ie: people having sex on camera for money while being degraded should be legally permissible) doesn't mean I have to buy the revisionist argument that the original intent of the First Amendment was to cover Max.

al_bundy
06-12-08, 02:50 PM
Catcher in the Rye is seen as a literary classic. are any of Max Hardcore's movies going to be seen as artistic classics in 50 years?

orangecrush
06-12-08, 02:57 PM
Catcher in the Rye is seen as a literary classic. are any of Max Hardcore's movies going to be seen as artistic classics in 50 years?If this board can get “pee in her butt” to be an acceptable catch phrase, then maybe his movies can be seen as artistic.

macnorton
06-12-08, 03:39 PM
Catcher in the Rye is seen as a literary classic. are any of Max Hardcore's movies going to be seen as artistic classics in 50 years?

I call bullshit on that one. It isn't exactly a matter of if something is "classic" or not, it is whether or not he *can* do it.

In fact let me use this example. The Bible, some will tell you that it is the most important book in the history of time and should be treated as such. Where as I find it to be the best work of fiction ever created. But I also find the book offensive. So, the question I pose is, the Bible is offensive to me, should we ban it and put the people who distribute it in jail?

The answer to that question is simple...no.

Birrman54
06-12-08, 04:03 PM
I'm a long time supporter of consensual adult material being legalized and I support changing the laws to a more objective basis but given that all sorts of mainstream material has been found legally "obscene" over the last 200+ years, I find the arguments that protecting Max's commercial speech strange.

If you asked those that signed the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights would their affirmations cover dunking a female's head in a urinal while sodomizing her, I get the impression that they'd have you tar and feathered before you could blink an eye. Thankfully, we've progressed over time to where books like The Catcher in the Rye and other literary works are not as subject to personal interpretation but just because I might "agree" with the consent issues involved (ie: people having sex on camera for money while being degraded should be legally permissible) doesn't mean I have to buy the revisionist argument that the original intent of the First Amendment was to cover Max.

No, I doubt they'd specifically say that the amendment was meant to protect such acts, but then again they passed the Alien & Sedition acts only a few years later.

Then again if you told them that you wanted to prosecute a guy who directed a performance with consenting adults for a consenting audience, I bet they'd probably think that was wrong.

orangecrush
06-12-08, 04:05 PM
I call bullshit on that one. It isn't exactly a matter of if something is "classic" or not, it is whether or not he *can* do it.

In fact let me use this example. The Bible, some will tell you that it is the most important book in the history of time and should be treated as such. Where as I find it to be the best work of fiction ever created. But I also find the book offensive. So, the question I pose is, the Bible is offensive to me, should we ban it and put the people who distribute it in jail?

The answer to that question is simple...no.
Maybe everyone should just be less offended by stuff.

macnorton
06-12-08, 07:10 PM
Maybe everyone should just be less offended by stuff.

Why? Maybe you should be more offended...do you see where I am going with this? The whole case is ludicrous. But the thing is, when you flip the argument (hence my Bible example) 9 times out of 10, people start singing a different tune. And I am not shocked you made a comment that I should be less offended...I expected it.

For the record, I am really not trying to cause any trouble or attack anyone at all. I am merely illustrating a point.

damn_skippy
06-12-08, 07:26 PM
Funny, I think pretty much the exact opposite.

It's when speech is at it's most repulsive and objectionable, when the majority cries out for it to be silenced, that the protections our laws afford are most important.



I feel you this is a touchy subject and open to many different views and ways to look at the amendment.

I also believe the same about the second amendment. I believe at the time giving the people the right to bear arms was necessary for national defence and for a way of life(hunting, trapping, etc). but seeing the advancements made over the past 200+ years to guns. I personally think the amendment would not have been so broad. I don't think ak's, uzis, and automatic weapons would have been a part of that.

al_bundy
06-12-08, 08:20 PM
I call bullshit on that one. It isn't exactly a matter of if something is "classic" or not, it is whether or not he *can* do it.

In fact let me use this example. The Bible, some will tell you that it is the most important book in the history of time and should be treated as such. Where as I find it to be the best work of fiction ever created. But I also find the book offensive. So, the question I pose is, the Bible is offensive to me, should we ban it and put the people who distribute it in jail?

The answer to that question is simple...no.

what's offensive? 90% of the Bible is a history book and not religion.

the Bible us even used by atheist scientists for it's historical value

Houstondon
06-13-08, 07:25 AM
Then again if you told them that you wanted to prosecute a guy who directed a performance with consenting adults for a consenting audience, I bet they'd probably think that was wrong.
A quick look at the history of obscenity prosecutions dating back to "ye good old days" of the Founding Fathers suggests otherwise. I honestly don't think they'd care if the acts were consensual, especially given how women were to be protected from harm (and didn't get to vote until many years later).

My point was that I agree with the idea that these are "living" documents that evolve over time because the original intent of the Amendments would not protect Max from their wrath (just as I doubt that they'd agree that the 2nd Amendment gave people the right to own nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons).

Tracer Bullet
06-13-08, 08:02 AM
No, I doubt they'd specifically say that the amendment was meant to protect such acts, but then again they passed the Alien & Sedition acts only a few years later.

:lol:

Tracer Bullet
06-13-08, 08:03 AM
the Bible us even used by atheist scientists for it's historical value

:lol: What? No it's not. At least not all of it.

macnorton
06-13-08, 08:35 AM
:lol: What? No it's not. At least not all of it.

You stole my line...oh well.

Birrman54
06-13-08, 10:14 AM
It also occurs to me that in many muslim communities the idea of atheism or apostasy is offensive and obscene, would a treatise on the virtues of atheism be considered "obscene" by those community's standards?

orangecrush
06-13-08, 10:25 AM
It also occurs to me that in many muslim communities the idea of atheism or apostasy is offensive and obscene, would a treatise on the virtues of atheism be considered "obscene" by those community's standards?
Yes.

Shannon Nutt
06-13-08, 11:02 AM
what's offensive? 90% of the Bible is a history book and not religion.

the Bible us even used by atheist scientists for it's historical value

Have you ever read through the Old Testament...there's some wild stuff going on in the Bible (better than even Max has put on film!). :)

bhk
06-13-08, 11:31 AM
It also occurs to me that in many muslim communities the idea of atheism or apostasy is offensive and obscene, would a treatise on the virtues of atheism be considered "obscene" by those community's standards?
Obscene enough to be punishable by the death penalty.

al_bundy
06-13-08, 12:00 PM
Have you ever read through the Old Testament...there's some wild stuff going on in the Bible (better than even Max has put on film!). :)

it's called history and people used to do it. in some parts of the world people still do these things.

Birrman54
06-13-08, 12:21 PM
Obscene enough to be punishable by the death penalty.

In many of their nations, yes.

I'm wondering whether in a specific neighborhood in THIS country, for example Dearborn, MI, if such speech could be categorized as 'obscene' and therefore repressed, and the distributors prosecuted.

macnorton
06-13-08, 12:39 PM
In many of their nations, yes.

I'm wondering whether in a specific neighborhood in THIS country, for example Dearborn, MI, if such speech could be categorized as 'obscene' and therefore repressed, and the distributors prosecuted.

Yes I think so. Having spent a lot of my childhood in and around that area, I can assure you that even though they live in the US, the old world traditions are alive and well. Now is it as extreme as death, no I don't think so, but I am pretty sure Max and his boys would not last very long there.

chris_sc77
06-13-08, 07:29 PM
I love how R. Kelly can piss all over a girl under 18 and get away with t but Max Hardcore films himself pissing on adults and gets convicted. Amazing. SO the lesson to learn is if you are going to videotape tape yourself pissing on someone make sure it a kid and not an adult?

mhg83
06-13-08, 09:51 PM
I love how R. Kelly can piss all over a girl under 18 and get away with t but Max Hardcore films himself pissing on adults and gets convicted. Amazing. SO the lesson to learn is if you are going to videotape tape yourself pissing on someone make sure it a kid and not an adult?

and dont sell it online as well.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0